William McCrea: If it is confirmed to the Secretary of State and the House that Martin McGuiness attended a paramilitary display in Londonderry at the weekend, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House that he has thus proved himself totally incapable of gaining the confidence of the people in respect of playing a part in any Northern Ireland Executive?

Tony Wright: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24th May.

Tony Blair: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts of what has changed over the past nine years. I think it is fair to point out that whereas over the last four years of the Conservative Government the number of asylum applications rose by 50 per cent.— [Interruption.] This is on the record. We have reduced the number of asylum claims to below the number that we inherited in 1997. Whereas that Government used to take 22 months over initial asylum applications, 80 per cent. are now decided within two months. We have doubled the number of people removed who are failed asylum seekers, and unlike the previous Government we now actually know the number of people whom we need to deport and can deport them.
	I agree that a huge amount still needs to be done, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We have waves of migration, not just in this country but throughout Europe. Migration is a major issue in the United States at the moment for the self-same reasons. There has been, as my right hon. Friend said, huge progress in the past nine years, but there needs to be much more.

Tony Blair: For the very reason that I have just given to the right hon. Gentleman.  [Interruption.] No, I am not blaming the last Conservative Government. I am simply pointing out that the system that we inherited in 1997 took ages to decide asylum claims, and that it was a system in which the number of asylum seekers rose and people who were failed asylum seekers were not removed. It is a fact that the number of asylum claims is now down; it is a fact that the number of removals has now doubled; and it is a fact that 80 per cent. of claims are now decided in two months. It is also, however, the case that much more needs to be done.

Dennis Skinner: I know that the Prime Minister is aware that the question of illegal immigration is in the papers consistently. It is a difficult one, but I came across a case the other day involving a man from Ghana. He came here for an eye operation, and stayed for 10 years on benefits. This bloke did not work at the Home Office; he was a Tory party worker in 1995. [Hon. Members: "Hoorah!"] The Home Secretary at the time should have been counting illegal immigrants, but he missed one right under his nose. We are now told that the Tory party wants to spread happiness—

Tony Blair: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say how things have got better. The economy is stronger, unemployment is down and employment is up. Waiting lists and times are down in the national health service. School results have improved at 11, 14, 16 and 18. In relation to the Home Office, crime is down, as I pointed out earlier, and there are record numbers of police—indeed, there are record numbers of police in his own area.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend has rightly referred to the Warwick agreement, and I assure him that it will be honoured in full, as we have said totrade unions and employers. It will bring decent minimum standards into the workplace, which is an important difference between this side and the Conservative party.

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to limit the hours of opening of large shops on Sundays and other specified days.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to the House a Bill that will limit the hours in which large supermarkets and other stores trade on a Sunday at present. I do so because I believe that every politician in the House must answer a simple question: what kind of society do we wish to create? In 1994, did we really wish to create a seven-days-a-week society, with each day identical to the previous one? Did we wish to make Sunday the same as a Saturday, Friday or Monday? I do not believe that we did.
	A healthy society has a rhythm to life, not a monotony of work, work, work, shop, work, shop, shop, work, or whatever. To me, that is not good for a healthy society. I am worried about families, and I want to help them to be together, not to split them apart so that one partner works on a Sunday while the other looks after the children, allowing them to work on a Monday while the first partner looks after the children. That is not good for families. Families are generally a unit of two partners and children. I think that it is good if families can spend time together as a unit, rather than each partner spending time individually with the children. There are other opportunities that are missing from the rhythm of life.
	Although I am a Christian—I am a Roman Catholic and I go to church—that is not the fundamental reason why I am proposing the Bill. I am suggesting that one day has to be different, and it does not matter whether that is for religious observance, a sporting interest, leisure, or time with the children. I fundamentally believe that, for a healthy society, such a difference must go on.
	Let us consider the impact of the 1994 Act. The Government-commissioned Indepen report stated that the changes that have occurred since 1994 include the extension of Sunday opening and its continuing growth. The report concludes that congestion has increased on Sundays as more and more people go to the shops. However, more importantly for those who have to work on Sundays, there has been a reduction in the Sunday wage premium. Those who find themselves with little choice but to work on Sundays are thus finding that their reward for giving up their day off with their families is being reduced.
	When we consider what people want, we must look at the changes that have occurred. One of the big changes to the grocery trade has been the growth of the big four. The big four now have 70 per cent. of all grocery trade. The Department of Trade and Industry's response to that is not to say, "Hold on a second. Aren't just four companies dominating the whole market?" It has refused year after year to examine that situation to determine whether there is fair trading, although there is some give on that at the moment.
	The Department's proposals are actually the reverse of mine. It proposes to consult on deregulating Sundays altogether. The only consequence of that would be to increase the dominance of the big four. It would work to the detriment of small shops, and there would be not only no rhythm of life in society in the week, but no rhythm of where people can go to shop: the convenience stores would all close because they could not compete with the buying power of the large supermarkets.
	What sort of society do we want? Is it one that is led by the market? I believe that that should not be the case. The market should serve us, not we serve the market. A survey by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which does not support my proposals—it wants the existing regulations to remain in place; it does not want an extension of opening hours, but nor does it want to go back to the situation in 1994—showed that 43 per cent. of those who responded did not want to work on Sundays but often had to, that 37 per cent. did not mind working on Sundays occasionally, and that only 20 per cent. wanted to work on Sundays. The reality is, however, that more and more people are being forced to. I am aware of people in my constituency who are frightened to say no to their employers when it comes to Sunday working. The number of workers who are now protected is falling because work within the sector tends to be short term.
	However, not only are shop workers affected by Sunday opening; so are street cleaners, who have to go out on a Sunday because there is now more mess on that day; so are bus drivers, because people want to go to the shops and there is pressure on services on Sundays; so are lorry drivers, who have to give up their weekends to make deliveries to stores; so are the police, who now have to do more work because shops are open on a Sunday; so are traffic wardens, who have to control the traffic on Sundays; and so are fire crews, who have to staff the fire stations because there is an increased risk of their being called out because of the shops and additional offices that are open on a Sunday. The 1994 Act has had an impact not just on the rhythm of life and on workers who are forced to give up their free time to work on a Sunday, but on a lot of other people in many other sectors.
	Let me quote two or three cases that have been put to me. A woman working for a large department store in Swansea wrote to Keep Sunday Special, saying:
	"I feel enormous pressure exerted on me to work Sundays, not only by my employer, but by my colleagues, many of whom felt threatened and worried by recent redundancies. I approached a supervisor, pointing out that legally I could not be forced to work on a Sunday. I was told that it was in my interests to be part of the team...no one else is complaining!"
	People have contacted Working Families, which also wants to keep the status quo. It said:
	"One caller had been working weekend shifts for many years while her ex-partner looked after the children. However, when he moved away she was left with no cover. She simply couldn't work weekends any more."
	She lost her job as a consequence. Working Families also said:
	"Another caller had had his shift patterns changed unilaterally to include some weekends, which coincided with when his wife worked. His employer wasn't prepared to fit shifts around partners. We advised the caller of his rights regarding flexible working, but he said that both he and his wife were too scared of losing their jobs to do anything."
	That is the reality of Sunday work.
	There is support for a change from the Churches, and the United Reformed Church used the phrase "rhythm of life" in its letter to me. Between 71 and 80 per cent. of parents say that they have no choice about whether they work weekends. They are not like MPs, who may opt to do their casework on a Sunday. Instead, they are the poorer members of society—the people who are forced to work. For them, we need to look at the legislation and to change it. For society as a whole, we need to look at it and change it. I believe passionately that Sunday needs to be different. We need a day when we can relax, meditate, play sport or go to church.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Richard Younger-Ross, John Pugh, Mr. Colin Breed, Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Anderson, Stephen Pound, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Peter Luff and Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 5— Restrictions on special school closures—
	'(1) No special school shall be closed by a local education authority without the consent of the Secretary of State.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the closure of a special school if there are places at nearby special schools in sufficient number and sufficient quality to replace the school adequately.'.
	New clause 30— Professional standards for teachers—
	'Professional standards for teachers shall require that all those receiving—
	(a) initial teacher training,
	(b) assessment for induction or as a main-scale teacher,
	(c) assessment for threshold or as a senior teacher, or
	(d) assessment for suitability as a head teacher,
	shall be required to demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.
	New clause 31— Permanent exclusion of pupils—
	'(1) This section applies in relation to the permanent exclusion of a disabled pupil or a pupil with special educational needs by any school at which education is provided for him.
	(2) No such pupil shall be excluded unless a review has been held of—
	(a) the sufficiency and effectiveness of the reasonable adjustments being made for him if he is a disabled pupil, and
	(b) the special educational provision being made for him if he is a pupil with special educational needs.'.
	New clause 52— Circulation of materials in relation to course of study—
	'After section 85A of EA 2002 (inserted by this Act) insert—
	"85B Requirements relating to materials for courses of study in specified entitlement areas
	Where a course of study within an entitlement area specified by the Secretary of State under section 85A(1)(b) is to be introduced, the Secretary of State must ensure that all necessary materials are circulated to schools and other relevant learning providers at least one full academic year before their introduction and that due consideration is given to the time it takes to translate such material into Braille.".'.
	New clause 77— Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils with special needs—
	'(1) Section 19 of EA 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3B) (inserted by section 93 of this Act) insert—
	"(3C) Where a statement of special educational needs is maintained by the local education authority in respect of a pupil pursuant to section 324, the period following which education referred to in subsection (3A) must be provided must be sufficient to permit the authority to amend or otherwise reassess the statement where required by law.".'.
	New clause 78— Responsibility of governing body for discipline (supplementary provisions)—
	'The governing body of a relevant school must not delegate responsibility for the policy drawn up under section 80(1) to anyone unless that person has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.
	New clause 79— Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy (supplementary provisions)—
	'The head teacher must, in determining measures under section 81(1), show—
	(a) how reasonable adjustments are made, taking account of the particular circumstances of pupils with disabilities, and
	(b) what special educational provision is made within those measures for pupils with educational needs, with or without a formal statement.'.
	New clause 80— Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils with disabilities or special needs—
	'(1) Section 19 of EA 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3B) (inserted by section 93 of this Act) insert—
	"(3C) The local education authority shall have particular regard to the appropriateness of educational provision made for excluded pupils where those are disabled pupils or pupils with special educational needs.".'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 25, line 17, at end insert—
	'(6A) In discharging those functions, the governing body of a maintained school shall also have regard to the provision of appropriate teaching and learning support for any child with special educational needs.'.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 26, line 38, after 'requirements,', insert—
	'which shall in particular include a requirement to give priority in admissions to disabled children and children with special educational needs who do not have a statement under section 324 of EA 1996,'.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 27, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 27, line 31, at end insert—
	', and these shall include a report on the numbers of disabled pupils and those with special educational needs admitted to each school in the area.'.
	Government amendment No. 67.

John Hayes: As ever, the hon. Lady makes a good contribution to the debate. I was enjoying it immensely until she used the term, "child centred" and then I began to think of all the dreadful, progressive, post-Plowden dogma about child-centred learning that did so much damage and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has drawn the House's attention on more than one occasion.
	However, the hon. Lady is right that good education depends on much more than structure. It is sad that the Bill has necessarily focused our attention on structure when we should be discussing quality, as she so often does. Good education depends on the quality of teaching and learning; leadership; the home-school environment; and a proper understanding of children's needs. That mix makes for high quality education. Most important of all is the need to raise the status of teachers and to believe in education and in those to whom we entrust our children.

Gordon Marsden: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She will see, as I continue with my remarks, that I will provide further statistics that underline her point.
	New clause 30 specifically deals with professional standards for teachers, aiming to ensure that they demonstrate an understanding of SEN and disability legislation. That is terribly important because, without ensuring the inclusion of SEN children and without specialist support services, many children will not achieve their potential. The majority of deaf children, for example, are now educated in mainstream settings, but many still need appropriate support and provision.
	I refer hon. Members to the Ofsted report of 2004, which dealt with the issue of inclusive schools and children with special educational needs and disabilities. It states that only a minority of mainstream schools meet special needs very well and that others are becoming better at doing so. However, the report also notes that few schools evaluate their provision for pupils with SEN systematically so that they can establish how effective the provision is, with many schools undertaking too little forward planning to ensure that provision was in place. It said that
	"when they coped poorly, this was often attributed to pupils' difficulties rather than the school's inability to provide adequately."
	That is a leitmotif, highlighting an issue that we must deal with.
	Reference has already been made to the recent NUT report, "The Costs of Inclusion" published by Cambridge university. I shall cite from it because it provides important evidence about standards. It states:
	"In the absence of professional development, teachers are sometimes 'trained' by parents, placing reliance on parental knowledge and expertise. Input on most initial training courses is minimal and few new teachers are able to develop strategies for meeting the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties. 'On the job' training is also inadequate."
	There is also sometimes a strong lack of understanding in schools of the requirements of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Discrimination Act 2001. The National Autistic Society report, "Make School Make Sense", concluded that in mainstream schools, only 27 per cent. of parents say that all their child's teachers have been able to adjust their approach and teaching materials, thereby meeting their legal duties under the 2001 Act to differentiate the curriculum for SEN children.
	Finally, on the matter of training and development, I would like to cite two specific examples because I am mindful of the point made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in his opening speech—that we should view the problem in the context of real individuals, real families, real pressures and real crises rather than by trading statistics across the Floor of the House.
	These examples come from the National Autistic Society. A 13-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome attended a mainstream school, part time, to facilitate his integration process. His mother and a neighbour went to the school to find him standing facing a wall with a female teacher and assistant head teacher on the other side of the room. She went to talk to him. He had a tantrum, but was not physically aggressive. The female teacher intervened and tried physically to restrain the boy. The tantrum worsened and the boy ended up on the floor with all four adults trying to restrain him. He is then alleged to have kicked the female teacher and the police were called. The boy was calm when they arrived and was allowed to leave the school without comment, but he was formally excluded as a result of the incident. Three months later, he was actually arrested, with no recollection of the earlier incident being made, and he probably had no understanding of why he had been arrested.
	Three important implications apply. First, there should be proper training in and guidance for staff on the appropriate use of force. Secondly, appropriate provision should be made in respect of behaviour policy and disciplinary penalties. Thirdly, as I have already said, it is vital that teachers are trained in SEN and disability legislation and requirements. A range of other examples across the autistic spectrum disorders could be mentioned. In that context, it is worth saying that there is often a false assumption that children with disabilities have low intelligence. In certain groups, and particularly among children with Asperger's syndrome, nothing could be further from the truth. That is a major misunderstanding that must be dealt with in training and related areas.
	I want to put on record the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and I have had useful discussions with the Under-Secretary in the other place. We have already had a very helpful and supportive response from him and I am sure that the Minister will want to add to it today. I do not want to trespass on what he may say later, but on the issue of professional standards for teachers, I am reassured by the fact that a revised set of standards for qualified teacher status will be produced shortly. They will help to tackle some of the problems that I have mentioned. I understand why Ministers should think that there is no need to incorporate or update these references in statute, but the new clause does not preclude the updating of guidance or professional standards for SEN. I am sure that Minister will respond to the point later, but what we are attempting is simply to set basic minimum requirements that could and should be supplemented and complemented by further guidance.
	The other point that I would make about the proposed consultation on the standards is that, assuming their wider acceptance, they will be initially used in pilot schemes only—they will not be compulsory—because of which we should have a further discussion of whether we need to include more explicit standards in the Bill or, indeed, in other guidance. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot develop that suggestion today, I hope that that will happen when the Bill passes to the other House.
	Time is pressing, so I want to focus specifically on new clause 80, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). New clause 80 and the associated new clauses that my hon. Friends and I have tabled are designed to address behaviour policy and exclusions. From my example of the boy with Asperger's syndrome, I hope that it is clear to the House how vital it is that we get things right in this respect. There is a lack of understanding about the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in schools. Of course the DDA requires schools to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that pupils are not discriminated against because of their disability, but the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) made an entirely valid point in intervening on me a few moments ago: two thirds of all exclusions involve pupils with SEN.
	The Audit Commission report of 2002, "Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue", suggested that children with SEN, including those without statements, account for the vast majority permanent exclusions—almost nine out of 10 from primary schools and six out of 10 from secondary schools. So it is important to evaluate behaviour policy and disciplinary penalties to ensure that they are justified in the particular circumstances of pupils with SEN and those with disabilities. It is essential that we ensure that appropriate special provision is made for pupils with SEN that will reduce the risk of unnecessary exclusion. The Department for Education and Skills has very strong guidance on the issue: schools should try every practical means to maintain the pupil in school, including seeking LEA and other professional advice and so on. Again, all too often, that advice is not taken up.
	I also want to talk about pupils with SEN who have multiple fixed-term exclusions. Almost 4 per cent. of pupils with statements of SEN and 2.6 per cent. pupils with SEN without a statement have one or more fixed-term exclusions in a year. It is very important that children who are not registered as permanently excluded but who still do not attend schools regularly due to multiple fixed-term exclusions should be provided for appropriately, especially given the number of informal or unofficial and, quite frankly, sometimes illegal exclusions of pupils with SEN. That issue will be familiar to many hon. Members because it comes to them by way of their casework, and for many hon. Members and certainly for me, it is one of the things that makes us have such a strong focus on the importance of the issue.
	I want to refer to what has been done in this respect since September 2002, when the Special Education Needs and Disability Act 2001 came into effect, and to refer to the new disability equal duty that schools and local authorities have under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Again, I am grateful to the Minister in another place and his officials for the comments and assurances that they have offered in that respect. They say that
	"the resource was developed with schools and local authorities for schools and local authorities and fulfils a commitment we gave in our SEN strategy, 'Removing Barriers to Achievement'".
	That shows how some schools are already meeting the duties effectively and provides a range of guidance and training activities. I understand that that guidance will be available in printed form very shortly.
	The key phrase to consider, however, is "some schools", which suggests that the standards are very good, but that they are still not being implemented widely enough. They need to be stated more explicitly and more needs to be done to implement them. Although I accept the Government's assurances on the issue and that the new duties under the DDA 2005 will help with the exclusions issue, it is important they do not consider that the job is done. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on the fact that the Government should use the opportunity of the time between the Bill leaving the House if it receives its Third Reading and passing to the other place to talk to the Special Education Consortium and the other disability charities that have made representations to discover whether such things can be strengthened above and beyond the existing DDA legislation.

David Blunkett: I confess to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that, at one time, I was dogmatic. I was dogmatic for a brief period—I promise that it was brief—when I came out of a special residential environment. I spent six years in integrated education for the first time, on day-release from work and at evening class, before going into full-time integrated education for the first time at university. I was dogmatic because my experience had been a difficult one. My schooling had not offered the academic achievement that we would want for our own children, and, as with so many schools, the physical environment left something to be desired.
	In the 1960s and 1970s, special schools, be they day or residential, were not what they are today. One precise reason why Baroness Warnock has changed her mind on this issue—and why, by the time that I became Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I began to see that it was absolutely crucial not to be dogmatic—is that the world has changed.
	When I went to primary school, most of those whom I was at school with had just one special need: they could not see. By the time that that school closed because the number who simply could not see had dropped, the incidence of multiple disability—the multiple special needs that children had—had grown to the point where that type of education could no longer cope. So the school closed not because people wanted to eliminate a facility, but because it needed to be re-shaped for a different era, in which medical science had eliminated the original causes of special need, but had also kept alive children who previously would not have been in school at all, because they would not have reached school age.
	So we are dealing with a different environment, and I appeal to the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) did, to come together. None of us wants a system that does not take account of the special needs of the individual child and their family. Various issues have been raised this afternoon, such as the proper of training of teachers, professional development, the training of learning support workers—there are now 110,000 such workers in mainstream schools throughout the country; they did not exist nine years ago—and the ability of learning mentors to develop, alongside special educational needs co-ordinators, the specialism of guiding and supporting families and others in the school environment. We need to recognise that those issues are crucial.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools on intervening to get the statistics right, and I believe that the Government are listening and responding. However, I have two or three regrets that I want to put on the record. In 1998, when I was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, we moved towards regional planning. I believe strongly that, without it, we cannot maintain centres of excellence, expertise and the necessary facilities. Even with the best resources in the world, no single education authority can possibly provide for every specialism and every need. In any case, the level of expertise across the country is limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) described what my own authority is doing, but there are authorities such as Derbyshire that come very close to being exemplars. It is at the local level that an understanding must be shown of people's specific needs. However, we can do things at a regional level that cannot be done at the purely local. I now regret that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 did not place greater emphasis on ensuring that that happened.

Nadine Dorries: We have all been elected to represent the most disadvantaged in our constituencies. From that perspective, and in the spirit of consensus, I hope that the Minister will accept that any points that I make are not party political but made with the view of representing those of my constituents in the unfortunate position of not receiving appropriate educational provision.
	I wish to speak about new clause 5, with brief reference to new clause 4. I notice that the Minister mentioned the number of schools that the Conservative Government closed before 1997, and he was right to do so. All Governments have made mistakes in education, and it is about time we all started getting it right. However, I am reminded of the point made by Baroness Warnock when she described the need to close down special schools because too many children were being isolated in special provision. She said that the pendulum had swung too far. Perhaps not all those 200 schools needed to close, but too many have and that has resulted in a crisis, which is why hon. Members are receiving so many representations on the issue.
	One of the organisations with which I liaise contacted me this morning and asked me to make a point about something that the Minister said yesterday. I have not had a chance to check  Hansard yet and I was not in my place when it was said, but the organisation said that the Government referred to the school admissions code as a panacea to protect the rights of children who benefit from a statement of special educational needs, but we should all be aware by now that the protection of children with statements of special educational needs is not dictated by the admissions code or the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but by the criteria specified in the Education Act 1996, especially schedule 27. I have now put that on the record on their behalf.
	The Minister mentioned the 300 schools that have opened, and I have tabled questions to ask where they are and how many children they will take, because they are not in my patch nor in those of the many people who have asked me to speak on their behalf. It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) say that schools were opening in her area, because I wish I had such provision in my constituency. Perhaps some areas are better served than others, and the crisis arises in areas that are poorly served. When things go wrong for a special needs child, they can go spectacularly wrong, and that is why we tend to hear about such issues in that way.
	The way in which many of our SEN children are educated is described to me as a scandal. I do not like to use that word, because it is emotive, but when we hear some of the stories, such as that told by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South about the little boy against the wall, we realise that it is shameful that children are educated in such environments today. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the statistic that two thirds of all excluded children have special needs, including nine out of 10 of those excluded from primary schools and six out of 10 from secondary schools—some 27 per cent. of autistic children. I prefer to use the word "expelled" as do the organisations I talk to, because it expresses the nub of the matter. I shall talk in a minute about a six-year-old girl who has been excluded, but the reality is that she has been expelled from future education. Can hon. Members imagine the outcry if 27 per cent. of the generic school population was excluded or expelled each day? There would be an outcry. Despite that, special schools are still being closed.
	When Lord Adonis gave evidence to the Education and Skills Committee I asked him whether the Government had a policy of inclusion, because I believe that the inclusion agenda may be driving the closures. He said that inclusion was the will of Parliament, which was a very strange answer. I asked the Minister in Committee whether the Government had a policy of inclusion, and he did not answer, so I ask again. Do the Government have a policy of inclusion? That is the fundamental question in special education today, and education authorities, parents and governors all deserve to know.
	While the Government refuse to confirm whether they have an inclusion agenda, there are policies in the background that are driving forward and enabling that agenda. For example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 states quite clearly:
	"If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child he must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the parents or the efficient education of others".
	Those words lead to the presumption that all children should be educated in the mainstream, and they are backed up by the "Removing Barriers to Achievement" document, which acts as a reinforcement to the inclusion agenda.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) asked whether the Secretary of State is going in and closing down special schools. Of course he is not walking into a special school and saying, "This school closes today", but LEAs are implementing policies that they believe are the Government's agenda. LEAs are reluctant to statement children or to refer them to special schools. In a neighbouring constituency, referrals from the LEA have dried up completely since the 2001 Act. As a result, the local special school will be financially unviable by the end of the educational year. Referrals have dried up because the LEA is reluctant to statement. It believes that it is carrying out the wishes of the Government and using the 2001 Act as its justification not to statement or refer. It is also using the "Removing Barriers to Achievement" document to back that up.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	RESTRICTIONS ON SPECIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady appears to accept that the local education authority may not be unbiased and impartial. Why, therefore, is it is better at administering admissions than the school itself?

David Chaytor: I shall speak to the group of amendments tabled by myself, but may I say first that I agreed completely with many aspects of what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said? He provided a powerful critique of selective admissions systems, which will also underpin my own argument in support of new clause 39. I am therefore extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points.
	Today's debate, furthermore, could not have taken place without the Conservative party's dramatic switch of policy over selection earlier this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) asked why that happened, and it may well have been due to the authoritative YouGov poll published in  The Daily Telegraph last December, which showed that only 20 per cent. of parents supported selective admissions policies to secondary schools. That amounts to focus-group policy making with vengeance, but I am delighted that the Conservatives have listened to the focus group that  The Daily Telegraph offered them.
	I shall speak mainly to new clause 39 and briefly to new clauses 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46 and 47 in reverse order. New clause 47 argues the case for bringing academies into the overall admissions arrangements of other schools. New clause 46 is similar to new clause 42, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), but the latter has the advantage of dealing specifically with anonymised admissions.
	New clause 45 raises the question of the local educational authority's role as the co-ordinator of local admissions arrangements and the monitor of compliance with them. I feel slightly ambiguous about it because I was one of the first to argue that the admissions forums should have a new enhanced power to monitor compliance. I am very pleased to say that that is now in the Bill and I am grateful to the Government for including it. I would still like to test the argument and I hope that the Minister will think further about it in due course. Perhaps we should ensure that the admissions forum has the full support of the LEA, particularly in respect of secretarial and administrative functions.
	New clauses 43 and 42 simply place within the Bill the admissions criteria that are deemed to be either acceptable or unacceptable in the current code of practice. There has been a long-standing debate about whether the code of practice or elements of it should be incorporated into the Bill, perhaps as a schedule, and these new clauses make the argument for having a full list of approved over-subscription criteria—not non-permitted criteria—placed directly in the Bill. We have already established a precedent for doing so with some over-subscription criteria: for example, we have agreed that the ban on interviewing, the priority given to children in public care and the promotion of banding should all be in the Bill, so it is illogical if other approved criteria are not in it.
	New clause 41 is consequential on new clause 40, which argues, given that the Bill brings about significant changes to admissions arrangements, that we should establish, six months after the passing of the Act, an independent review body to monitor and assess the operation of all aspects of admissions arrangements across the country.
	I wish to speak at slightly greater length to new clause 39 and I intend to press it to a vote. The new clause deals almost entirely with process rather than with the arguments between supporters and opponents of selection. An argument about process can take place now only because, for the first time in more than 30 years, we have a consensus between the three main political parties about not returning to selective admissions policies as an organising principle of secondary education in this country. For that, I am hugely grateful to the leader of the Conservative party, who changed the policy earlier this year. I believe that they have listened—

David Chaytor: The point is that the new clause would deal with the remaining anomalies in the system. I take it as read that the three main political parties have settled their argument about what happens in the majority of the country. Of course, there is an internal debate in the Tory party between those who deeply resent the change of policy and those who are prepared to put up with it; but that is a matter for the Tories, and I suggest that they go somewhere else and have that internal debate.
	New clause 39 has to be seen together with new clause 40. In retrospect, it may have been preferable to incorporate the latter into the former, because new clause 40 calls for an independent review of the admissions arrangements. So the strength of the argument is simply this. If the Government accepted the new clause, they would build on the all-party consensus that no longer accepts selection as the organising principle for admission to secondary education by following through the logic of that consensus and establishing the end-date of 2010. Six months after the Bill has been enacted, an independent review body would be established to examine all aspects of our admissions arrangements, and to study the evidence of the impact of admissions arrangements in different parts of the country. The review body would report before 2010, and we could then have an informed debate based on evidence, not on ideology or prejudice. Parents would then form their judgments in the light of that informed debate. That is precisely why I am confident that if such a procedure were adopted, very few parts of the country would choose to reintroduce selection.
	It is hugely significant that since the great change to our admissions policies under the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970, and under the Conservative Government between 1970 and 1974—of course, we all know which Tory Secretary of State was responsible for abolishing more selection in our system than anybody else—we have been unable to have that informed debate.
	I draw an analogy with the way in which we have tried to resolve other intractable problems when the political parties have themselves found it difficult to reach agreement. All the parties agreed that it was necessary to get a neutral third-party expert to consider the funding of higher education, and we invited Ron Dearing to take charge of the commission dealing with HE funding. The Government did not accept everything in the Dearing report, but it was subsequently considered to be the authoritative body of evidence and argument, and now we all refer to it. I am delighted that, in another of the Tories' historic flip-flops, they have adopted our policy on HE funding.
	I also draw attention to the impact of the Tomlinson report on education reform for 14 to 19-year-olds. That issue was a political football that the parties kicked about for a number of years. There was a desperate need for consensus, and we resolved the problem by setting up an independent review body under the chairmanship of Mike Tomlinson.  [Interruption.] No—Mike Tomlinson suggested that there would be a 10-year period of reform and change, and the Government have taken the first steps as part of that reform.
	Let us move outside education and consider the analogy of pensions policy, the implications of an ageing work force, and the balance between the responsibilities of the state, the individual and the employer. What did we do to deal with that issue? We brought in a former president of the CBI and gave him the task of building a national consensus on pensions policy.
	We can draw some lessons from the Turner report. A few months ago, there was very little public support for the raising of the state retirement age. Because of the work of the Turner commission and the informed debate that followed the publication of its report, the Government are now confident enough to raise the retirement age and a majority of the public are in favour because they now understand the arguments clearly. That is the best analogy I can give for the way in which I would envisage new clause 40 operating, with an independent review body of admissions. We need a neutral expert to lead the national debate and gather all the evidence. With such a lead, we could kill off all the old sterile arguments about which kind of school is best and how many A to C grades this school has as opposed to that school. We could really focus on the impact of selection in our system and, once we did so, people could form their views accordingly.
	I assume—I may be wrong, and they can correct me later—that the Conservatives have reached their new position because they understand that selective admissions policies lower achievement overall. They understand, because they have read the recently published evidence from Professor Jesson, chief academic adviser to the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust; because they have considered what the National Foundation for Educational Research has been saying for many years; and because they have read what the London Institute of Education has said. The Conservatives know that the brightest children perform equally well, if not slightly better, in all-ability schools than in selective schools. They know that the impact of selection is to depress results overall; to depress post-16 participation rates overall; and to increase levels of segregation overall.
	The Tory party also knows the differential between selective and non-selective schools, in respect of the proportion of children on free schools meals. It is slightly over 1 per cent. in selective schools and almost 17 per cent. in the population as a whole. Similar figures exist for children with special educational needs and, in some parts of the country, from minority ethnic groups—an issue that has not been examined in the detail that it deserves.
	The Tories also know what we find if we compare Northern Ireland, the most selected area with the highest levels of segregation, with Scotland, with the least segregation; it compares favourably with the Scandinavian countries that manage to combine equity and high standards. In Northern Ireland, the number of adults in the population who left school with no qualifications is twice the number for Scotland. In Scotland, the number of adults in the work force with degrees or degree-equivalent qualifications is almost 50 per cent. higher than in Northern Ireland. That is the most dramatic evidence that selective systems depress results overall, lower levels of attainment and increase levels of social segregation.

Martin Linton: I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who knows all too well that the effect of selection in the partially selective schools in constituency has a very big effect on other parents of year 6 children in his constituency and, indeed, in mine.
	Significantly, the mistake was not made in the admissions code of practice, which does not use the 1998 level as its benchmark but says that selection cannot be raised if it has been continuous since that time. However, the code of practice was not mandatory. Unfortunately, the 1998 Act causes the problem. That Act was never intended to say what the judge says that it meant. I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who was the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when Mr. Justice Collins made his ruling, and I have a letter from his Under-Secretary—Stephen Twigg, whom we all miss, I am sure—who wrote:
	"It was not widely expected that schools that had been compelled by the Adjudicator to reduce the level of partial selection would be able to raise it again. Nor was this our intent when we introduced this provision."
	The then Minister went on to say that
	"we may want to amend the School Standards and Framework Act at some time in the future".
	The time has come; the opportunity is here.
	I raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I understood that she would consider it in Committee. It has not yet been dealt with, so I have tabled an amendment that would deliver what the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 intended, what we meant when we said, "No new selection", and what most of my constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends are expecting.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), both of whom were educated in my constituency, will understand when I say that, when the 1998 Act was passed, there was in my constituency one of the six lowest performing schools in the country—not the one that they went to—and its performance was worse than that of any school in Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds. Since that Act was passed, that school has dramatically improved its pass rate from 4 per cent. to more than 30 per cent., partly because the partially selective schools in the neighbouring constituency were forced to stop taking the most academically gifted children from our borough.
	The adjudicator forced those schools to reduce academic selection in successive steps from 50 to 33 to 30 and then to 25 per cent. The head teacher and the staff of that school, having rolled that heavy boulder up from the bottom of the hill to the top, are now on the verge of a bright new future, as an academy. I want to be able to assure them that that process will not be suddenly reversed by an adjudicator who can decide to increase the proportion of selective schools, with all the devastating consequences that that would have for the other schools in the borough.
	I wish to say a brief word about new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I am a great admirer of the work that he does with Comprehensive Future—a total supporter—and I believe that it is important to keep hold of the fact that ballots in fully selective areas of the country and adjudicators in respect of areas with partially selective schools are the two means by which we can gradually reduce and then I hope, one day, eliminate the use of academic selection in secondary schools.
	I welcome the new cross-party consensus—although it does not appear to have reached all Opposition Members—the logical conclusion of which is that we must make ballots and the adjudicator system work. With my brief amendment, I am trying to ensure that the adjudicator system works in the way that we intended. My hon. Friend is trying to improve the ballots system, but I fear that putting the onus on supporters of grammar schools to call for referendums may make it easer for them to run "Save our grammar schools" and "Vote no to abolition" campaigns, and to have the upper hand in referendums. I am not convinced that reversing the current system and providing for ballots opposing abolition would advance the cause that my hon. Friend and I both support. For that reason I shall not vote for his new clause, but I should like the Minister to say what the Government intend to do about this loophole.

Jim Knight: I have every intention of doing so, but I felt that many colleagues wanted to hear what I had to say about grammar schools.
	As we have heard, parents have organised a number of petitions about grammar schools, but only one has gathered sufficient support to prompt a ballot. I always listen to the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) with great care, as he has great knowledge and wisdom and adopts an instinctively progressive point of view. However, the evidence suggests that it would be neither productive nor cost effective for the Government to organise ballots across the country, given that there has been so little call for them so far.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) admitted that his amendment No. 112 read like gobbledegook, but it would prevent schools with partially selective admissions arrangements from increasing the proportion of children selected. In addition, if the schools adjudicator has upheld an objection and reduced a school's level of selection, the amendment would prevent that school from reinstating its original level of selection later.
	As I said, I appreciate that it is still possible for the admissions authority to restore the proportion of intake that is selected, even though we have moved to make sure that the decision of the schools adjudicator will stick for two years. However, the loophole uncovered by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea goes against the Government's commitment to no new selection—a commitment now shared by the Opposition—and I shall look at ways to bring forward an amendment in another place to close it.
	I turn now to the arrangements for admissions to academies, about which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is especially concerned. I recognise that there are concerns that academies should be subject to the same admission rules that apply to maintained schools. New clause 47 highlights that concern by seeking to require academies to consult on their arrangements and take part in a co-ordinated admissions process, and it would also require objections about those arrangements to be made to the schools adjudicator. However, the Secretary of State already places those conditions on academies through their funding agreements. Moreover, he, rather than the adjudicator, determines objections to their admissions arrangements. That means that we already have the power that my hon. Friend is looking for, although it is expressed in a different way.
	The funding agreement goes further, requiring academies to comply with admissions legislation and to have regard to the school admissions code of practice. Once clause 37 is enacted, academies will also have to act in accordance with the new schools admissions code. I hope that that reassurance is sufficient for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
	I want to allow the hon. Member for Brent, East to wind up the debate, and I apologise that there is not enough time for me to tackle all the amendments. However, I think that we dealt in Committee with the arguments in respect of the ones that remain, and I urge that they be withdrawn.
	In conclusion, this Bill addresses the needs of parents and children, while at the same time setting a sensible framework in which school admission authorities must operate. It allows a degree of flexibility to take account of local circumstances, but it also provides clear parameters.
	We want an admissions process that allows parents to choose schools, rather than schools choosing parents. Ruling out admissions interviews, strengthening the status of the admissions code and giving forums greater responsibilities and powers will all help to achieve that aim.

Sarah Teather: I am not sure how to follow that extraordinary love-in between the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the Secretary of State—[Hon. Members: "Intertwingle!"] Indeed. I cannot help wondering whether such a deep and personal display of affection may be something that we should not be watching in public. Although we are liberals on these Benches, I have always felt that three is a crowd, so we will not be joining in.
	Of course, the truth is that it is just a marriage of convenience, not the real thing. The Secretary of State needs the passport that the Conservatives can give his Bill, and the Conservatives are really only interested in breaking up his family. The Secretary of State has been left walking a tightrope between the two, trying to persuade his family that this time he really has changed while still clinging to his affair with the Conservative Front Bench. The truth is that, as the hon. Member for Havant said, the Bill has change very little since Second Reading, despite the Secretary of State's attempts to reassure his own Back Benchers that it has.
	The three key concerns that we had when we embarked on Second Reading remain. First, we do not believe that adequate safeguards on admissions have been given. If we are to give schools more freedom to control their own admissions, we want the extra safeguard of ensuring that someone impartial administers them. I welcomed the concession that the Minister made on Report for the conducting of pilots. However, I would have preferred that a permissive clause or enabling regulation be included in the Bill so that we could be sure that the Government are serious about this issue and are not simply going to kick it into the long grass, as I fear they will. Without such a safeguard, giving schools more freedom to control admissions is not adequate.
	Secondly, on accountability, we are totally opposed to giving trust schools the option of reducing the number of elected parent governors. To us, that flies in the face of all the spin about parent power. I assumed that I would never win the argument with the Secretary of State about giving away the power of veto, so that local authorities could have the strategic power that they desire to plan their own services. New Labour's commitment to new localism has never really been about accountability. Nevertheless, I was astonished by the arguments that were advanced yesterday against parental ballots.
	Thirdly and most importantly, I still do not feel that an adequate, clear vision has been set out. Is this a competitive education model or a collaborative one? Still, we have the Prime Minister's vision of a competitive model, rather than the vision that, I suspect, the Department for Education and Skills would much rather pursue: of a collaborative model that allows real choice in the curriculum. Without that model, we will never see the real reforms that we want—reforms that give schools the freedom to teach what young people want to learn.
	In our view, this Bill is a missed opportunity. It is a timid Bill with hidden dangers, and for that reason we will vote against it tonight.

Barry Sheerman: It with reluctance, almost, that I rise to speak. I feel embarrassed at not having participated in the long hours of consideration of this Bill in Committee; however, my Select Committee did carry out a virtual pre-legislative inquiry when we examined the White Paper.
	I welcome the Bill and I will support it on Third Reading, as will the vast majority of my Labour colleagues. I will do so because it builds, as the Secretary of State said, on what we know works. The longer that I have chaired the Select Committee, the more that I have come to realise that it is not dogma that will deal with the problems that we encounter in our schools throughout the country. Some of my colleagues like dogma. A small group of them would still like to nationalise the top 100 companies, for example, and will vote for any of those old dogmas if they are given the chance.  [Interruption.] Well, they do not like it, do they?

Andrew Love: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and endorse everything he says. I hope that Ministers will read our debate tomorrow and take those issues up on our behalf.
	The main reason for having the debate this week is because of the concern that exists throughout the international community, but primarily on the island itself, about the major escalation in violence following the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement talks in April. That had been coming for some time. The two sides were on the slippery slope. Although there had been a so-called ceasefire agreement since 2002, the violence never stopped. If we look back at the history of that agreement, we see that, although intensive talks took place between 2002 and 2003, they soon ran out of steam. There has been little or no political progress since then. The situation between the two communities has deteriorated and violence has flared up.
	A combination of events led to that position, such as the assassination of the former Foreign Minister, Mr. Kadirgama, the collapse of the post-tsunami operational management structure—P-TOMS—agreement, which would have allowed both communities to be involved in tsunami relief, and the split in the Tamil Tigers, with the Karuna faction actively engaged in violent activities, mainly against the other part of its own community. Human rights violations have been perpetrated with impunity in the north and east of the island. There was euphoria when the talks began in February, but that was soon replaced by the same old problem of lack of trust and confidence between the two communities, with the result that tit-for-tat violence led to the current situation.
	Talks broke down after the Tamil Tigers walked out, because in their view the Government did not help to facilitate meetings between commanders in the north and east of the island. They claim that those talks have not been abandoned. I hope that that is the case, because the re-establishment of genuine talks is one of our few hopes of progressing to negotiations. The situation is serious—indeed, it is much more serious than it was. In a recent speech, the Minister highlighted the attempted assassination of the army chief, General Fonseca as an example of the escalating violence on the island. There have been many incidents, but recently, a suicide attack on a navy gunboat killed 18 crew members and injured many others. Many people who were on the boat used by the attackers were also killed.
	In April, 191 people—some of them were soldiers but many were civilians—were killed on both sides of the conflict. The violence has been condemned and there has been a flurry of diplomatic activity. Norway has actively engaged in the task of trying to bring people together. What are the British Government doing on behalf of Parliament to try to bring the parties together to reduce the violence on the island? For example, have they pressed for a resumption of the talks between the two parties on a ceasefire agreement? What action has been taken by the United Nations and the European Union to try to support efforts to engage the parties? We are in a unique position—we have a long historical connection with Sri Lanka, and many Sri Lankans live in the UK—so are we assisting Norway with our expertise?
	At the end of the month, major donors, including the EU and the UK, will meet in Tokyo. What action will they take to try to reduce the violence on the island? People across the country who are interested in Sri Lanka often raise the issue of whether the UK Government could and should play a more central role in offering assistance. We all know the historical record: the Indian Government and the United Nations have been involved, and Norway is currently involved. We accept that there are difficulties, but Britain can play a special or unique role. I hope that the Minister accepts the urgency of the situation.

Kim Howells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate. These are difficult times for Sri Lanka, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss how the United Kingdom is engaged in Sri Lanka to help improve the prospects for all. We should remember that Sri Lanka is not a small, faraway island. It is a substantial country of 20 million people.
	The Indian ocean tsunami caused wide-scale loss of life and devastation last year. Hopes that the process of tsunami recovery and reconstruction would help develop greater long-term harmony among communities were unfortunately not realised. Over the past year, there has been a steady and deeply worrying deterioration in the security situation in the country. Sri Lanka's development is again in danger of being overshadowed by its long- running ethnic conflict.
	The appalling assassination of the Foreign Minister, as we heard from my hon. Friend, was followed by the attempted assassination of an army commander, regular attacks on military personnel, grenade attacks against civilians, extra-judicial killings, disappearances and intimidation, mob violence and violence by paramilitary groups. The cycle of violence has contributed to an atmosphere of extreme mistrust and polarisation, which has fuelled further antagonism and violence.
	For a lasting peace to be possible, the violence must abate, and the parties must discuss in earnest and honest terms the issues that matter to them and find a way forward. No one else can do that for them. That is a statement which I know my hon. Friend understands. He has visited Sri Lanka, together with the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), and seen it for himself. I saw it for myself on my visit there.
	Only Sri Lankans can secure a peace for Sri Lanka. All sectors of Sri Lankan society need to contribute positively to the quest for peace. The Sri Lankan diaspora in the UK and elsewhere in the world, like any diaspora, needs to allow the parties the appropriate space to make progress towards peace, and we must try to help with that.
	However, as my hon. Friend made clear, the international community has an important role to play in the peace process by supporting and encouraging the parties on that journey, and creating an environment conducive to building a sustainable peace that will benefit all the peoples of Sri Lanka. Within the international community, the UK uses its long-standing and good relationship with the people of Sri Lanka to work to that end. I am sure the House supports that aim.
	In response to the worsening situation in December and January, the international community urged the parties to talk. As presidency of the European Union, Great Britain played a big part in those efforts. The co-chairs of the Sri Lanka donor group—the EU, the United States, Norway and Japan—put great pressure on the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to put an end to the violence and fully respect the ceasefire.
	Those efforts brought results, when the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE got round the table in Geneva in February for the first time in three years. All of us had great hopes at that moment. The Government pledged that no armed group or person other than Government security forces would carry arms or conduct armed operations, and for their part, the LTTE pledged to take all necessary measures to ensure that there would be no acts of violence against the security forces and the police. Both sides made a commitment to ensure that there would be no intimidation, acts of violence, abductions or killings.
	I am sure my hon. Friend and hon. Members will agree that the resurgence and subsequent escalation in violence since that moment is all the more disappointing. Since the beginning of April, as my hon. Friend reminded us, at least 300 people have died, more than half of them civilians. That is a terrible situation.
	We know that the LTTE are responsible for many of the violent acts. Our position on the LTTE is clear: they are a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Along with the international community, we have urged them time and again to move away from the path of violence. Our concerns go beyond high profile attacks on the armed forces. There is an established pattern of LTTE involvement in killings, torture, detention of civilians and denial of freedom of speech. For many Tamils, any expression of opposition to the LTTE is not an option. That is the sad truth. We remain deeply disturbed by the LTTE's continuing recruitment of child soldiers.
	But the LTTE is not the only source of violence. I have to make clear, too, our deep concern at the plight of civilians in Government-controlled areas, who are regularly subjected to brutal attacks by paramilitary groups, often acting with apparent impunity. There are also reports that Government security forces may be involved in some of those killings.
	So what needs to happen next? My hon. Friend asked some very pertinent questions. In my view, the answer is clear. It is vital that both sides return to the negotiating table and live up to the commitments that they made in Geneva in February. We shall continue to offer political and practical support to the peace process in whatever way we can. Violence is not the answer. The only way forward is a negotiated settlement that satisfies the concerns and legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans and preserves national unity and integrity. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing the hope that all parties go down that road, and soon, and that we shall finally see Sri Lanka fulfil its very considerable potential. As the hon. Member for Northampton, South has told me, it is potentially a tourist paradise. It should be one of the wealthiest countries in southern Asia, but it is rapidly becoming one of the poorest. It is a disgrace that that has been allowed to happen.
	What are we in the United Kingdom doing? The British Government continue to urge the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE to fulfil the obligations that they made at the Geneva talks in February, to do all they can to stop the violence, and to return to talks. We have given our full support to the efforts of the Norwegians, who have the difficult task of facilitating this process. We very much admire their continued determination and inexhaustible work in the face of much public dissension. The Norwegian interlocutors who are doing this work always pay us the privilege of calling into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that they can keep us abreast and we can find out from them what we can do to help. We have continued to do that. We also continue to support the work of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission, now led by a Swedish general, in monitoring ceasefire violations.
	On a practical level, we contribute to peace-building in Sri Lanka through the implementation of a peace-building strategy that has been agreed across the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. It focuses on such themes as greater adherence to human rights standards, preparedness for peace negotiations, and strengthening civil society. DFID has contributed £2.6 million towards de-mining activities in Sri Lanka, which is a very serious issue that my hon. Friend did not have a chance to discuss; £6.25 million to UNICEF's children affected by armed conflict programme, which is another very serious issue; almost £2 million to civil society organisations to promote conflict transformation; £3.5 million to Oxfam to reduce the number of children suffering as a result of the conflict; and £3.3 million to Save the Children Sri Lanka to increase respect and realisation of child rights.
	Let me deal with the issue of internally displaced persons—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and the hon. Member for Northampton, South for raising it. Internally displaced persons should be protected and assisted by their Governments in the first instance. However, if a Government are unable or unwilling to do that, the international community should provide support. There has been much debate about that in the United Nations recently. We must carefully examine what the international community can do to help in those circumstances.
	In Sri Lanka, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is mandated to assist internally displaced persons. In 2005, the British Government gave £30 million to UNHCR, of which £20 million was DFID core funding, and we would like at least some of that money to be spent on alleviating the problems of internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka. Like my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Northampton, South, we support the principle that every internally displaced person has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his or her residence.
	Internally displaced persons should have conditions established by competent authorities, which allow them to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity to their homes or habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country. I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman understand that the Government are concerned about that important issue. I am glad that they raised it.
	Since the tsunami, a great deal has been achieved and assistance is reaching most victims of that terrible natural disaster. However, with so many independent non-governmental organisations active throughout Sri Lanka, there are wide differences between districts in the standards and quality of relief work. The immense size of the reconstruction task is stretching the capacity of central and local government to manage and co-ordinate assistance. Assistance has been reaching some communities more quickly than others.
	The Government and donors, including DFID, are working to make the administration as efficient as possible and to remove any bureaucratic hurdles that constrain non-governmental organisation activities. With that in mind, DFID has recently approved£1.5 million for the north-east provincial council—NEPC—to increase its capacity to deliver services to affected communities. The NEPC is responsible for some 70 per cent. of the area damaged by the tsunami. Despite the difficulties, the achievements to date have been substantial. Assistance is reaching communities throughout the country and making a genuine difference. Sadly, the recent escalation in violence has led to a suspension of the programme and some other DFID activities in Sri Lanka. I greatly hope that an improvement will occur in the security situation and allow those activities to resume.
	 Question put and agreed to
	 Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.